My point is that "why doesn't matter" with regard to what alerts any particular person to something being suspicious. It is in know way a justification for the final outcome merely a factor that led up to it. What are we allowed to find suspicious or out of the ordinary enough to rise out level of concern? You cannot legislate way what things make people feel a certain way. If you hear a car alarm and then see a person running in a direction away from the alarm must you not be suspicious for fear of profiling runners?

Also, the hoodie in no way was used to justify Zimmermans actions in court. Again the media and the masses mean little and more often than not are wrong or have too little information. Zimmerman did not need to legally justify his reason for being suspicious, sure it's brought up to put things into context, but he's legally allowed to have been suspicious for any reason. The justifiable shooting was clearly as a result of the jury believing that Martin attacked Zimmerman and he feared for life or limb. Since none of the events presented leading up to that point were illegal, they are irrelevant to the actual verdict. A lot of a court case is like a word/math problem, you need to strip away all the extra to get to the actual issue to find the answer.

I in no way condone demonizing Martin at all for anything that we know he did or didn't do. He very well may have been just in the wrong place at the wrong time when Zimmerman poorly chose to leave his vehicle. I agree the suspicion is far lower given the rain, but that doesn't have to mean totally gone or at all gone in Zimmermans' mind. Not to mention "people demonizing Martin over the hoodie is total BS in my mind, I don't care what the masses think, the focus should be on the legal system from the initial officers through the verdict.

For everyone who demonized Martin over the hoodie, I suspect there are as many demonizing Zimmerman for carrying a gun, a previous bout with the law, and other issues. He's no hero to me, he's just a man who was found to have been justified in killing someone of which the circumstances are questionable enough to raise doubt on both sides, leading to the presumption of innocence in court. This case shows how little many people understand laws or our legal system or even care when they arrive at a verdict before the jury.

A lot of good points made. I believe that if Zimmerman could not be objective, if he couldn't overcome his inherent bias, then he probably shouldn't have been part of a neighborhood watch. How do you train someone (a volunteer no less) to behave professionally and look passed his own biases and be objective? Real cops have to learn to do it.
Maybe a state like FL, with liberal carrying laws and stand your ground laws should not have neighborhood watch groups. Seems like it's too much to ask that they behave responsibly.

A lot of good points made. I believe that if Zimmerman could not be objective, if he couldn't overcome his inherent bias, then he probably shouldn't have been part of a neighborhood watch. How do you train someone (a volunteer no less) to behave professionally and look passed his own biases and be objective? Real cops have to learn to do it.
Maybe a state like FL, with liberal carrying laws and stand your ground laws should not have neighborhood watch groups. Seems like it's too much to ask that they behave responsibly.

What biases?

If you look at Zimmerman's past he demonstrated no significant biases against blacks.

The fact is he saw somebody who he did not recognize, in his opinion, looking and walking around the homes in a suspicious manner rather than just walking down the street, wearing a hoodie, which is often used to cover up ones face so they cannot be recognized.

If you wish to define that as bias, have at it. To me, it's just somebody picking up on what he considered suspicious activity.

And you can sing, dance or do the two-step but Zimmerman was within his rights to follow Martin.

And Martin was within his rights to walk down the street.

Originally Posted by LaFireEducator

It was Martin that made the decision to double back and likely escalate the incident.

Which is also his right. Given that he was close to home I might believe he didn't want a stalker knowing where he lived. Which is Martin's right.

Originally Posted by LaFireEducator

And there is no changing that reality. Blame Zimmerman all you want, but if Martin had just gone home .... We would not be having this discussion.

The same can be said that if Zimmerman had followed the direction of the 911 dispatcher and not followed Martin.

Originally Posted by LaFireEducator

Sit there all you want to tell yourself that when Martin ran into Zimmerman he likely politely asked George "Sir, why are you following me?". I tend to believe that there was very little conversation and Martin threw the first punch, hence, committing the first and ONLY illegal act of the evening.

Speculation that isn't supported. Zimmerman is the individual with a history of physically violent behavior. Plus he was the one that was armed.

Originally Posted by LaFireEducator

Keep blaming Zimmerman for doing what he was 100% within his rights to do as a resident of that complex. It won't change the fact that Martin made the choice that changed the outcome of the evening.

I will. Martin was within his rights to walk down the street as a resident of that complex. It won't change the fact that Zimmerman also made a choice that changed the outcome of the evening.

Originally Posted by LaFireEducator

What biases?

If you look at Zimmerman's past he demonstrated no significant biases against blacks.

You don't know that. More speculation on your part.

Originally Posted by LaFireEducator

The fact is he saw somebody who he did not recognize, in his opinion, looking and walking around the homes in a suspicious manner rather than just walking down the street, wearing a hoodie, which is often used to cover up ones face so they cannot be recognized.

The fact that it was raining might have been a factor why Martin had his hoodie pulled up.

Originally Posted by LaFireEducator

If you wish to define that as bias, have at it. To me, it's just somebody picking up on what he considered suspicious activity.

Which neither you nor Zimmerman has stated what constituted "suspicious" activity. You must hate America. The rest of us believe in the concept of innocent till proven guilty. It's a bulwark of the US criminal justice system.

There it is, the actual racism being brought into it. Zimmerman may have done it just as you say, or just maybe he followed a young person who looked suspicious to him given the recent crimes in his gated community? The hoodie and Martin's color are merely descriptive adjectives. Or are we supposed to be so enlightened to not report those facts when calling the police? If he was a white supremacist or neo-Nazi or had some racist past, maybe we could buy into this a little more, but all indications are that he was none of those and thus you and so many others have turned adjectives into hate speech.

Zimmerman has yet to state what Martin was doing that warranted him being followed. The idiot from Bossier keeps stating that Martin was acting "suspicious." What does that mean other than walking down the street while being black?

Did Zimmerman also have a pattern of following white and hispanic males he didn't recognize? Or are we to believe he knew everybody and was up to date on all the residents at any given point in time?

Which neither you nor Zimmerman has stated what constituted "suspicious" activity.

He has no obligation to state why.

You must hate America. The rest of us believe in the concept of innocent till proven guilty. It's a bulwark of the US criminal justice system.
Now that is some funny crap right there. That made me laugh so hard that I may have to take the rest of the day off.

You can actually sty that after the liberal media described him as "white" and NBC doctored up the 911 call to make him sound racist.

Zimmerman was tried, declared guilty and hung by the liberals and the black community even before the trail started.

Really? He needs no justification? You've never heard of the term "probable cause?" Google it. He does when he is accused of a crime. If you believe that, then I'm certain you won't understand why the Feds might bring civil rights charges against him.

Originally Posted by LaFireEducator

Now that is some funny crap right there. That made me laugh so hard that I may have to take the rest of the day off.

Like you need an excuse to not do work at a job that could go away tomorrow and no one would notice.

Originally Posted by LaFireEducator

You can actually sty that after the liberal media described him as "white" and NBC doctored up the 911 call to make him sound racist.

I wasn't referring to the media. I was referring to the justice system. BTW, the conservative media had just as biased descriptions as Martin.

Originally Posted by LaFireEducator

Zimmerman was tried, declared guilty and hung by the liberals and the black community even before the trail started.

And you can sing, dance or do the two-step but Zimmerman was within his rights to follow Martin.

I never said he wasn't but his blatant stupidity led to this incident occurring. Let me play out for you how this supposedly occurred. Zimmerman spots a 'suspicious" individual and decides to follow him. He loses him and THEN decides to exit his vhicle to try and locate him. A confrontation occurs and Zimmerman while getting his azz beat shoots and kills Martin.

Honestly, Mr I don't get involved because I won't have insurance coverage, do you see that as smart tactics? You are following someone YOU deem suspicious, lose sight of them and decide to exit the relative safety of your vehicle in an attempt to locate them? Seriously, even the average school child would look at that and say "Um, duh? Stupid!" Is it illegal? Nope. Stupid beyond belief? Indeed so.

Tell me when following someone crosses the line into illegal. Say a little girl is walking home from school, and EVERYDAY the same man follows her from the second she leaves school until she walks down the driveway at her house. He follows her at roughly a hundred feet or so, EVERYDAY. How long before your "He is within his rights to follow her" becomes outrage, you confront him and ask him why he is following her, or call the cops and want him questioned or arrested. According to you he is within his legal rights to follow her.

It was Martin that made the decision to double back and likely escalate the incident.

Can't be proven he started the physical altercation though can it?

It was Zimmerman who 1) decided to get involved, 2) decided to exit his vehicle in an attempt to locate a suspicious person he had no idea where they were at, 3) ultimately shot Trayvon to death
And there is no changing that reality. Blame Zimmerman all you want, but if Martin had just gone home .... We would not be having this discussion.

Funny thing is you could say the same for Zimmerman. If he had just gone home he wouldn't have gotten his azz beat and had to shoot and kill someone. Funny how your justification for the incident works in reverse to prevent the incident. Call the police and stay out of it. No violent cime was occurring and trespassing is no reason to die.

Sit there all you want to tell yourself that when Martin ran into Zimmerman he likely politely asked George "Sir, why are you following me?". I tend to believe that there was very little conversation and Martin threw the first punch, hence, committing the first and ONLY illegal act of the evening.

Believe what ever you want. But this is the simple truth, YOU and everyone else can only speculate on what actually happened. NO ONE will ever know for sure what actually happened.

Keep blaming Zimmerman for doing what he was 100% within his rights to do as a resident of that complex. It won't change the fact that Martin made the choice that changed the outcome of the evening.

Prove it. The only thing the jury decided was at the moment Zimmerman was getting his azz beat, by a smaller, lighter teenaged boy, he was within his legal rights to shoot him because he feared for his life. THAT is all the jury decided. Nothing about who started it, nothing about Zimmerman's basically idiotic move to look for a suspicious person who he had no idea where they were. None of that, just his legal right to defend himself.

Your whole premise is built on the speculation that Martin started the physical confrontation and you simply can wish it all you want, but you can't prove it.

Which neither you nor Zimmerman has stated what constituted "suspicious" activity.

He has no obligation to state why.

And Martin has no obligation to comply with any requests from Zimmerman. Including answering questions about why he is there.

Frankly, if I was walking through a neighborhood and was asked why I was there I would simply keep on walking. If the person persisted I would politely tell them it was none of their business why I am there and keep on walking. If he continued to question me I would stop, face them and call 911 on my cell phone and request a police officer to my location to file a harrassment complaint. You see LA this is still America and we don't have to present papers to be able to move about the country. We don't have to answer ANYONE'S questions about our actions unless we are breaking the law and even then we don't have to talk to anyone other than law enforcement. AFTER we are read our rights.

You must hate America. The rest of us believe in the concept of innocent till proven guilty. It's a bulwark of the US criminal justice system.
l
Now that is some funny crap right there. That made me laugh so hard that I may have to take the rest of the day off.

And the funnier part is no one noticed you were gone and fire department productivity didn't drop off one bit.

You can actually sty that after the liberal media described him as "white" and NBC doctored up the 911 call to make him sound racist.

Both sides of the media and the political spectrum made themselves look like self serving ****** bags.

Zimmerman was tried, declared guilty and hung by the liberals and the black community even before the trail started.

And the right wing media and the ultra right white had Trayvon Martin guilty of everything under the sun and have done all they can to slander this young man even though he is dead.

It is isn't it? With absolutely no proof at all you have tried, convicted, and approved the shooting death of Trayvon Martin for being "suspicious." Now that would be funny if it wasn't so damn pathetically sad. So let me say this to you, and it won't be the first time you have heard it...You sir are a world class hypocrite.

The best part about this is everything you have stated as proof is pure specualtion on your part...

Really? He needs no justification? He does when he is accused of a crime. If you believe that, then I'm certain you won't understand why the Feds might bring civil rights charges against him.

That's not what he said. He stated that Zimmerman had no obligation to state his reasoning in terms of actually testifying in court to defend himself. There's even a constitutional amendment that affords him that right.

I'm sure he had some sort of "justification" for his actions and I'm sure that he conveyed that to the police in some fashion in the immediate aftermath of the incident.

Which neither you nor Zimmerman has stated what constituted "suspicious" activity. You must hate America. The rest of us believe in the concept of innocent till proven guilty. It's a bulwark of the US criminal justice system.

One could make the argument that "presumed innocent until proven guilty" is little more than lip service and a nice slogan for our criminal justice system.

The reality is that the system is technically based on the presumption of guilt, not innocence. If it wasn't, then the police would never arrest anybody until after the person is found guilty at trial since the basis for an arrest is in fact the presumption that the person is guilty of committing a crime of some sorts. Without that presumption of guilt, there'd be no reasonable basis for detainment and/or incarceration pending a preliminary hearing.

You believe in innocent until proven guilty, but also guilty regardless of proven innocence? While they're not mutually exclusive, it's a little over the top to toss that out there.

Not guilty does not necessarily mean innocent. It can mean a lack of a proponderence of the evidence was shown to prove guilt, or it can mean, as in the OJ trial, an incredibly poor job was done by the prosecution.

Not guilty does not necessarily mean innocent. It can mean a lack of a proponderence of the evidence was shown to prove guilt, or it can mean, as in the OJ trial, an incredibly poor job was done by the prosecution.

You are correct with the first sentence, however, "preponderence of the evidence" is the standard in a civil trial. In a criminal trial, it is "proof beyond reasonable doubt".

Your whole premise is built on the speculation that Martin started the physical confrontation and you simply can wish it all you want, but you can't prove it.

Originally Posted by FyredUp

The best part about this is everything you have stated as proof is pure specualtion on your part...

Here's a scenario that is just as likely. Martin noticed a creepy looking guy following him. Realizing he was near his house he doubled back to see if the creepy looking guy was still following him. Lo and behold the creepy guy was outside his vehicle. Martin approached the creepy (who we now know was Zimmerman) and said, "why the eff are you following me cracker?" Whereupon Zimmerman tried to physically detain until the cops arrived (knowing they were on their way). Martin realized this person had no authority to detain him and didn't like being physically restrained by a fat tub of goo proceeded to resist (which was his right) to the point where he was able to gain the upper hand and started beating the crap out of him. Zimmerman realizing he was a fat piece of c*** and that this scrawny little teen was working him over managed to gain access to the handgun he was carrying and shot him. Pleading that he was in fear for his life. When in reality he was afraid that folks would realize he was getting his *** kicked by someone almost half his size.

Now this fat of piece of goo goes on Sean Hannity's program saying it was God's will that he shot Martin. What an effing pile. If there is a God I doubt it wants to be the justification for this.

One could make the argument that "presumed innocent until proven guilty" is little more than lip service and a nice slogan for our criminal justice system.

The reality is that the system is technically based on the presumption of guilt, not innocence. If it wasn't, then the police would never arrest anybody until after the person is found guilty at trial since the basis for an arrest is in fact the presumption that the person is guilty of committing a crime of some sorts. Without that presumption of guilt, there'd be no reasonable basis for detainment and/or incarceration pending a preliminary hearing.

Actually it isn't based on that at all. The prosecution has to prove your guilt. While the police may be able to arrest you, they cannot hold you indefinitely unless they have probable cause to detain past a certain time. I'm not sure of the limit. Then you are afforded your Miranda rights unless you waive them. Which a retired detective told to never do. His advice was to lawyer up immediately. Even if it is a traffic ticket. The police will claim that makes you look guilty but so what. The burden of proof is on them. Never give up your rights.

Actually it isn't based on that at all. The prosecution has to prove your guilt. While the police may be able to arrest you, they cannot hold you indefinitely unless they have probable cause to detain past a certain time. I'm not sure of the limit. Then you are afforded your Miranda rights unless you waive them. Which a retired detective told to never do. His advice was to lawyer up immediately. Even if it is a traffic ticket. The police will claim that makes you look guilty but so what. The burden of proof is on them. Never give up your rights.

All of what you said is true, but in order to be arrested and subsequently end up in the court system where the prosecution has to prove that a person is guilty of a crime, that person has to first be presumed guilty of that crime.

"Probably cause" is pretty much the presumption that something illegal is/has taken place (not proof that something illegal is/has taken place) in order for the police to take actions that they would otherwise not be able to do without violating a person's rights.

Additionally, Miranda Rights are not something afforded to you by the police. You have them right now. The reading of the Miranda Rights is a legal formality for being able to use what the suspect says in court to prosecute them.

Known thug.
Man striving to be a police officer. Which was used against him because he applied a various departments but didn't make the hire. Well if that, as the media portrayed, gives him a hero complex, there is a whole crap load of wanna-be's that have applied at numerous career departments that didn't get hired. Who have the exact same thing....
The video sums it up.

My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788Elevator Rescue Information